• To: 'Gavin Thomas Nicol' <gtn@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:47:02 -0600

But in some sense, we do get that information somewhere 
(typically, learning in humans which may be informal or 
forma), and so the question of direction is pertinent. 
Does the parent or child choose the course?

Steve's message is pertinent.  Maybe XML needs to, as 
a human does, be able to go in both directions.  That 
is, a parent constrains the element, but an element should 
be able to cite its eligible parents.  

o Why not namespaces?

o Why not architectural forms?

Packaging the application was what the MID project was
about.  There turn out to be (in my experience) only a 
few solutions if one can bet past arguing over PIs 
and pointy vs curly brackets.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]

As such, the trick now is to package the XML, and the interpretation 
context for the application (ie. how to package the application).

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Instance-centric Semantics (WAS RE: Being "precise" vs being "human")
• Next by Date: Comparing W3C XML Schema and RELAX NG
• Previous by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread